Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ted Stevens is Advocating Internet Censorship >

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 12:58 PM
Original message
Ted Stevens is Advocating Internet Censorship >

I predict even Reds will rail at this censorship and invasion of privacy.



_______________________________


http://news.com.com/Senator+suggests+targeting+Net+indecency/2100-1028_3-5618332.html


Senator suggests targeting Net 'indecency'
Published: March 15, 2005, 11:51 AM PST
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

The U.S. Congress may be preparing for another round in the Internet "decency" wars.

Sen. Ted Stevens, the influential chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, has indicated that Internet decency regulations could be inserted into legislation that was originally intended to boost fines for off-color radio and TV broadcasts.

"We ought to find some way to say, 'Here is a block of channels--whether it's delivered by broadband, by VoIP, by whatever it is--to a home that is clear of the stuff you don't want your children to see,'" the Alaska Republican told reporters Friday, according to an audio recording.

Stevens didn't describe how broadband or Internet telephony decency regulation would work, and a spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. Elsewhere in his remarks, the senator said indecency rules should be extended to cable and satellite, and "we're looking to create tiers, or create a system like the movie business...to let us develop a ratings system."

* * * *

"It looks like Stevens is talking about some sort of ratings system for the Internet," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "But you really can't have the FCC or the federal government be the taste police for the American citizens. It's just not going to work."

_______________________________

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. "The Reds" hee, hee, hee.
How we've come full circle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. LOL
What a difference a generation makes :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. Fuck Ted Stevens.
The internet as we know it wouldn't exist today if it weren't for porn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Claybrook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. I like his VOIP idea
"We ought to find some way to say, 'Here is a block of channels--whether it's delivered by broadband, by VoIP, by whatever it is--to a home that is clear of the stuff you don't want your children to see,'"


It's clear he has no earthly idea what he's talking about, because he's suggesting that Congress set aside non-obscene telephone calls. Voice Over IP is nothing more than the "packetization" of voice phone calls so that it can be transmitted over data lines.

So I agree: I think Congress should set up 2 or 3 voice over IP phone lines and not let anyone say dirty things while talking on those lines.

Idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. So how does he get around that free speech thingie?
And how does he apply his internet censorship to the rest of the world. Last time I checked, the internet was global.

Of course, maybe he plans on using the chinese model of internet censorship. That'll go over big time with his base!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. LOL at your new sig!
do you like mine?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Yours is the reason I amended mine!
And yes, since one of the tenets of my faith is reincarnation, I am, in fact, a BORN AGAIN Pagan (and again, and again, and again,...)

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheFarseer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Free speech doesn't include
Free speech doesn't include porn is their argument because what is porn saying? What's the message that cumfiesta.com is trying to convey? I don't agree with that line of reasoning, but I don't have a good comeback, do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mongo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. pornography is expression designed to arouse or stimulate,
much as a comedy is expression to evoke laughter.

The Supreme Court has long held that nude dancing is protected speech.

The first ammendment is well understood to protect unpopular or offensive speech. There is no right to be not offended by something in our society.

------
Had to come up with that on my own, but there have been many other people that have put it much more eloquently than I.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. It's an invasion of my privacy.
It's like coming into my bedroom to check on my activities. It's Big Brother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. I thought of China too
Stevens could consult with them, or with North Korea, on the technical issues in censoring the Internet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelvetMonkeyWrench Donating Member (122 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. I don't think the FCC's charter will allow it.
A while ago I looked at what FCC can and can't regulate and IMO this is a bit beyond what they can legally touch at the moment.

Of course that could be changed :(

==Hunkers down==
==Dusts off the crypto==
==Implements proprietary protocols==
==Encrypts a few thousand online porn sites==
==Resumes business as usual==
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheFarseer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. don't be so sure
"I predict even Reds will rail at this censorship and invasion of privacy."

This fits in perfectly with their family values theme. No reds are going to stand up for internet porn even if they do indulge thmeselves in it or most of these NASCAR dads secretly love the stuff. Of course we look like jerks going to bat for analsluts.com and they are trying to protect the children. I'm sick of being hit over the head for standing up for what's right, but I guess that's how it's going to be at least one more time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
13. stupid dumb fuck
its the WORLD WIDE Web moran! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC